S.Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal, JJ. - (1.) This special appeal, under the Rules of the Court, is preferred against the order dated 23.4.2004 of the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition No. 19741 of 2004 of the appellant against the order of compulsory retirement has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant contended that the impugned order of compulsory retirement is vitiated, since (i) certain entries, which were not communicated to the petitioner-appellant, were taken into account; (ii) in respect of one of adverse entry his representation was pending but without its disposal the entry was taken into consideration; and (iii) the departmental inquiry was initiated, but without completion thereof, the impugned order of compulsory retirement has been passed, which shows that the foundation of the order is punitive. He further submits that he was reverted in the year 1999 and adverse entries relate to the period when he was working on the higher post and, therefore, once, on the basis of the adverse entries and other service record, he was already reverted to the lower post, he could not have been compulsory retired on the basis of same service record, as it amounts to double jeopardy.
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that the order of compulsory retirement has been passed after considering entire service record of the petitioner-appellant in accordance with the provisions contained in Fundamental Rule 56 and all these aspects were placed before the Hon'ble Single Judge, who has considered the same in detail and, 7 therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge does not require any interference.;